Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful trait: the per-call cost ($0.01 USDC via x402), which is payment/auth context not present in the schema. It remains silent on rate limits, matching behavior, and error handling, so coverage is partial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: the first front-loads what data is returned, the second front-loads the cost. Nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant facts lead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, which covers part of the output burden. But with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent still lacks information on when this beats sibling tools and how results are shaped (ordering, pagination).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (q, naf, limite, departement) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, matching, or formatting detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource — official French company data from SIRENE/RNE — and enumerates the fields returned (identity, geolocated HQ, NACE, headcount, revenue, net income), so an agent knows exactly what this yields. However the action verb is only implied by the tool name 'search', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like agora_counterparty_check or agora_supplier_audit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. Given related siblings such as agora_counterparty_check and agora_supplier_audit, the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to guess which company-data tool to select.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.